RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.

1. Flowering marital bliss of a bride was nipped in the bud on the date of her marriage on account of a dastardly act of murder committed by the assailant. Whether the appellant was the perpetrator of the crime or not or whether the learned trial court was justified in convicting the appellant u/s. 302 I.P.C. is the question which we seek to answer in the present appeal. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 19.7.2012 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in connection with S.T. No. 440 of 2005 by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence u/s. 302 I.P.C. and was sentenced to R.I. for life and a line of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand).

2. The allegation made in the F.I.R. reveals that on 29.4.2005, the marriage ceremony of the daughter of the informant was to be solemnized with Awadhesh Kumar Pandey. During the course of marriage ceremony when some rituals were going on in the morning on 30.4.2005 at 3 a.m., the informant heard the sound of a gunshot. The informant rushed inside the house along with his family members and villagers and found that the appellant was fleeing away from inside the room of Bina Kumari (deceased). He was chased and apprehended and on search a loaded country made pistol was recovered from the left side of his waist. When the informant and his family members entered into the room of Bina Kumari she was found lying dead and there was gunshot injury on her head. Plenty of blood and brain matters were spread on the floor and other places. The informant alleges that the appellant often visited his house and was a man of suspicious character. The allegation noted above led to institution of Chouparan P.S. Case No. 68 of 2005 u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Investigation culminated in submission of charge-sheet under the said sections and on 22.9.2005 the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter charge was framed u/s. 302 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act and trial proceeded.

3. In course of trial 10 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution.

4. P.W. 1, Sumit Kumar Pandey, is the brother of the deceased who had stated that it was 3 to 3.15 a.m. in the night of 29.4.2005 when shot was fired in the room where the deceased was sleeping. He has stated that hearing gunshot, the informant, this witness, Ashok Kumar Pandey, Amit Pandey and others had rushed to the said room and they had seen the appellant coming out. The appellant was apprehended and thereafter all the persons went inside the room where the deceased was found dead lying on a cot and blood was coming out from her head. It was stated that the appellant was searched and from his left pocket one country made pistol and two cartridges were recovered of which one was a live cartridge. He further submitted that the police was informed who came and arrested the appellant. In cross-examination this witness had stated that if anyone would have entered the room of the deceased, he would have been seen. He had stated that no one had seen the appellant entering into the room of his sister. This witness has further stated that although he heard the sound of firing but did not hear any cry of alarm from the deceased. He has also stated that the uncle of the appellant is related to him.

P.W. 2 Deo Nandan Pandey had deposed that marriage ceremony of his granddaughter (deceased) was to be solemnized on 29.4.2005 when all of a sudden he heard the noise of fire from the room of the deceased. He has stated that when he along with others ran towards the room they saw the appellant coming out and he was apprehended. One country-made pistol was recovered from his possession. When this witness had gone inside the room he had seen Bina Kumari dead. The witness has stated that the appellant was of suspicious character. He has further deposed that the inquest report was prepared in his presence. In cross-examination he ha